Advocacy in Action

Energy

The state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee held a hearing this month on addressing electricity utility bill affordability while advancing the state’s clean energy goals. 

During the hearing, Public Utilities Commission President Alice Reynolds blamed the rise in rates largely on wildfire mitigation spending and cost shift from legacy net energy metering, with investments in utility transmission and distribution infrastructure cited as secondary driving factors. 

The California Farm Bureau has frequently reminded the PUC that the net energy metering cost shift is from residential customers, not from agricultural net energy metering or net energy metering aggregation customers. 

The California Farm Bureau is already scrutinizing several bills to ensure costs are not unfairly shifted to agricultural customers. One is Assembly Bill 332 by state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Silicon Valley, which would limit residential rate increases to inflation and lead to costs being shifted to other customer classes. Farm Bureau will advocate for its amendment. 

The bill does have positive aspects, such as reducing ratepayer contributions to the wildfire fund and increasing utility accountability. State Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, the new chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, indicated he is working on a bill or bills with state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-North Coast, on affordability.

Livestock and predators

The California Fish and Game Commission delayed action this month on limiting coyote hunting, agreeing to refer the matter back to the Wildlife Resources Committee for further review. 

The commission first approved a motion last month to consider removing coyotes from the nongame mammal code section and consider taking limits on coyote management. The California Farm Bureau and its FarmTeam members submitted more than 1,000 comments opposing the change and talked about the threat coyotes pose to livestock. 

The Wildlife Resources Committee will revisit the issue on May 15.

Meanwhile, the Farm Bureau has been meeting with key legislative members and budget staff to ensure resources are available to implement the wolf compensation fund that was put in place in 2021. 

The fund has run out of money, and with wolf populations continuing to grow, California ranchers cannot afford to lose a program that they can use to mitigate challenges the predators pose and to offset the impacts on their livestock, said Chris Reardon, vice president of policy advocacy for the California Farm Bureau.

“While we understand this is a tough budget year, we are working to ensure we continue the program without interruption,” he said.

Water

The California Farm Bureau joined with the Pacific Legal Foundation to file an amicus brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo in January. San Luis Obispo County was sued by environmental groups alleging that Lopez Lake dam threatens steelhead trout under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

A federal judge determined that operation of the lake threatens the trout and ordered the county to immediately release more water from the lake. Farm Bureau and the PLF argued that the lower court incorrectly issued injunctive relief under the ESA.

In another case before the 9th Circuit, California Farm Bureau joined Nevada Farm Bureau and Idaho Farm Bureau in an amicus brief to address water rights. The case has regionwide importance, including determination of when a state water rights decree is comprehensive, said Karen Mills, vice president of legal advocacy for the California Farm Bureau. 

The litigation arose from a matter in Nevada in which federal claims on water rights surfaced after agricultural interests had relied on adjudicated rights. State adjudication laws, such as those adopted in Nevada and throughout the West, are precisely the types of comprehensive statutes that Congress had in mind when it passed the McCarran Amendment, Mills said. 

Specialty crops

The House Agriculture Committee held a hearing this month examining the economic crisis in agriculture. The hearing aimed to identify key challenges agricultural businesses have faced in recent years and explore potential solutions. 

Among the panelists was San Luis Obispo County farmer Ryan Talley, who represented the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, of which the California Farm Bureau is a member. The alliance has long advocated for expanding farm bill provisions to better support specialty crops. A common concern among Western producers is that the farm bill primarily focuses on traditional row crops such as corn, cotton and soybeans, offering limited benefits to specialty crop growers. Talley emphasized the critical need for increased support for specialty crops, particularly as rising labor costs continue to challenge California farmers. 

Farm Bureau remains committed to ensuring specialty crops receive stronger consideration as the organization pushes for a full farm bill reauthorization this year. Key priorities include expanded crop insurance opportunities, research funding and improved market access for specialty crops.

Climate strategy

The California Farm Bureau provided public comments during a listening session last week on the state’s development of a climate resilience strategy for California agriculture. Richard Filgas, an assistant director of policy advocacy for the California Farm Bureau, called for a strategy that aligns with the state’s vision for a sustainable and equitable future while protecting farms and their ability to combat climate change. 

He stressed that development of the strategy should recognize the various factors that influence the scale and pace at which climate-smart practices are adopted by farms and ranches, including weather, markets and pests. Goals and policies set by the state must fit within the technological and business capacity of farming operations, he added. He also emphasized the importance of funding agricultural research. 

The California Department of Food and Agriculture will release the draft strategy this summer. For more information, visit www.cdfa.ca.gov/climate/.

Energy

The California Farm Bureau in January filed its opening testimony in the Southern California Edison 2025 General Rate Case Phase 2, which considers allocation of costs to customer groups and the design of rate schedules. 

Under Edison’s amended testimony, TOU-PA-2, which refers to small- to medium-sized agricultural and pumping customers with demands below 200 kilowatts, would receive a 6.7% decrease in current rates, while TOU-PA-3, which refers to large agricultural and pumping customers with demands from 200 to 500 kW, would receive a 10% increase. This results in a class-average increase of 0.4%. There were additional agricultural-specific rate design changes, including a 33.8% increase to the TOU-PA-3 monthly customer charge. 

Farm Bureau’s opening testimony focused on opposing the Public Advocates Office’s position on wildfire cost allocation and changes to Edison’s calculation of peak load risk factors. In addition, Farm Bureau noted the variance in impacts to TOU-PA-2 and TOU-PA-3 would need to be rectified, including rejecting the proposed TOU-PA-3 monthly customer charge increase. Finally, Farm Bureau proposed a well pump test credit modeled after the existing wind machine credit to provide some relief from demand charges in nonirrigating months when pump upgrades are planned or when flow testing is required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Parties began settlement discussions on Jan. 16 and will continue for the next two months in hopes of reaching partial or full settlements.

Water

The California Farm Bureau submitted comments on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s draft Phase 2 Sacramento-San Joaquin River Bay-Delta water quality control plan amendments. The board’s Phase 2 amendments consider two basic alternatives for required instream flows to protect native fish in the Sacramento River watershed and delta. One is a regulatory pathway and potential regulatory backstop, based on a proposed 45% to 65% January through June unimpaired flow requirement. 

The other is a comprehensive water user-backed mix of flow and nonflow commitments within a certain adaptive implementation framework, referred to as the Healthy Rivers and Landscape proposal. 

Farm Bureau’s comments focused on potential severe water supply and economic impacts and on various technical and practical difficulties associated with the board’s regulatory pathway proposal. The comments also focused on various comparative advantages of the proposed Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal. How to deal with parties not part of the proposed Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreement and water quality and other concerns in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta were additional areas of focus. Based on public input and ongoing work and discussions, the board is expected to consider a revised set of amendments for potential adoption sometime this year.

Farm Bureau also submitted comments on a water board proposal to renew a set of standing drought emergency regulations for the Scott and Shasta rivers, which are within the larger Klamath River Basin. Farm Bureau’s comments focused on the absence of requisite drought conditions for such an extension and included points on the proposed regulation’s continued misguided focus on late summer mainstem minimum flows that provide few benefits to target salmon populations while inflicting significant ongoing impacts on growers and ranchers who use water from the Scott and Shasta rivers. The emergency drought regulations are proposed as a placeholder until the board can complete nonemergency regulations for permanent baseline minimum flows across all water year types. A longer-term proposal and the subject of a pending petition by tribal and environmental interests in the area involves eventual permanent, higher, variable recovery flows specific to different water year types. 

Local cooperative solutions under the proposed emergency regulation are a key alternative and source of important flexibility for agricultural water users in these watersheds, said Justin Fredrickson, senior policy analyst for the California Farm Bureau. Such solutions would avoid some of the worst impacts of the board’s default flow requirements from widespread curtailments. 

“Problematic aspects of the board’s emergency and proposed permanent flow regulations in the Scott and Shasta rivers watershed are of significant note, as they set a disturbing precedent and could have potential adverse statewide implications,” Fredrickson added. 

In addition, Farm Bureau submitted comments on an upcoming scientific-basis report that the water board says it will use to eventually consider potential permanent instream flows to provide alleged protections to spring-run chinook and steelhead salmon on Mill, Deer and Antelope creeks, three undammed salmon-bearing upper Sacramento River tributaries. These proposed permanent flows parallel and in several respects resemble the permanent long-term flows proposed by the board in the Scott and Shasta rivers watershed, on which Farm Bureau also submitted recent public comments. 

Analyses show the California Fish and Wildlife Department-recommended flows—currently proposed as a point of departure for the board’s eventual scientific-basis report—would leave the waterbodies entirely without water for late-summer irrigation in many years and could still not be physically met, even with theoretical 100% curtailments. Farm Bureau’s comments focus on this aspect of the board’s proposed scientific-basis report, among other related issues, including the board’s legal authority to impose such flows.

Pesticides

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is developing new regulations and is partnered with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to potentially increase mitigation measures for 1,3-Dichloropropene, or Telone, a preplant fumigant. Public hearings were held in January in Visalia, Salinas and Chico. 

Farmworker activists overtook the Salinas hearing when several protesters staged a mock “die-in” by lying on the ground near the podium. Farm Bureau gave public comment at the Chico hearing, which was not attended by activist groups. Farm Bureau also submitted formal comments to highlight several elements of the proposed regulation that raise significant concerns, including increased costs and operational complexities for growers. The proposed setback distances range from 100 to 500 feet, depending on numerous factors, reduce the amount of usable land and could negatively impact crop yields, particularly for smaller growers.

Grazing

Federal legislation on the use of targeted grazing to reduce fuels and lower the risk of wildfires was discussed last week at a legislative hearing by the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Federal Lands Subcommittee.

One of the nine bills discussed included H.R. 7666, introduced by Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, and supported by the California Farm Bureau. The bill would increase livestock grazing to reduce wildfire risk by directing the U.S. Forest Service to expand the use of proactive, targeted grazing in fuels management programs. An identical provision was included in the House-passed Fix Our Forests Act, part of a comprehensive package that would encourage active forest management and support community resiliency to wildfires by expediting environmental analyses, reducing frivolous lawsuits and increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects.

At last week’s hearing in Washington, D.C., Tuolumne County rancher Sherri Brennan, a California Farm Bureau member, advocated for LaMalfa’s bill, which she said would help prevention and maintenance. She shared her experience from the 2013 Rim Fire that burned more than 257,000 acres in her county. Brennan told the subcommittee that targeted grazing for fuels reduction can remove up to 1,000 pounds of fuels per acre.

Bay-Delta Plan

Following the state’s 2018 adoption of unimpaired flow standards for the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries—the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers—the California State Water Resources Control Board is holding workshops for proposed flows standards of 45% to 65% for the Sacramento River watershed and Bay-Delta. The board is also considering an approach known as voluntary agreements that are supported by water users as a more holistic approach than flows alone. The latest draft Bay-Delta Plan is open for public comment. Public comments are due Dec. 19. On behalf of its members in affected counties, the California Farm Bureau is conducting outreach for county Farm Bureaus ahead of a Dec. 13 workshop. Farm Bureau staff has prepared a water supply impact summary that may be accessed under the “Water” tab under “Advocacy” at www.cfbf.com.

Water quality

California Farm Bureau staff is reviewing draft regulations, attending hearings and submitting comments to the state and regional agencies that would affect several agricultural sectors, including commercial wineries and dairy operations. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board set a hearing for Dec. 4 to adopt a draft order proposing waste discharge requirements that would establish water quality regulations for commercial vineyards in Sonoma and Mendocino counties.

Affecting dairies statewide, the California State Water Resources Control Board released a draft order that creates a new regulatory framework for nitrogen discharges and makes certain components precedential. The order includes establishing a nitrogen discharge limit, enforceable final numeric dairy waste land application rates, and providing short-term and long-term alternative water supply solutions to provide safe drinking water to residents reliant on affected domestic wells. Comments are due Dec. 6.

Water reporting

California Farm Bureau staff has participated in workshops and is developing written comments on proposed changes to the state’s existing water measurement reporting regulations. The California State Water Resources Control Board announced the proposed changes to simplify existing reporting requirements and improve compliance and to facilitate alternative compliance plans and increase flexibility. Affected water-rights holders are required to report the water they divert as mandated in the 2015 Senate Bill 88. The board’s formal rulemaking process continues in 2025.

Regenerative agriculture

California Farm Bureau attended the California State Board of Food and Agriculture meeting in October to continue its active participation as the state develops a definition for regenerative agriculture. The state board said its staff and the chair of the Regenerative Agriculture Working Group reached out to representatives on the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel for their input on the proposed definition and how it would be implemented. They said they are incorporating the panel’s comments into the revised definition and hope to have a definition to the state board in the coming weeks. The plan is to discuss the regenerative agriculture definition at the state board’s December meeting. Farm Bureau will attend the meeting and continue monitoring the issue.

Earlier this year, Farm Bureau sent a comment letter to the California Department of Food and Agriculture expressing its concerns with what is being proposed and offered suggestions to ensure efforts to define regenerative agriculture serve the agricultural community and Farm Bureau members. Some groups have pressed the state to take a narrow approach to the definition and to have organic farming practices to serve as a baseline.

In its letter, Farm Bureau said regenerative agriculture should be focused on soil health only and be consistent with scientific literature. The letter also said the term should be the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture so that interstate commerce is not disrupted by conflicting claims made by different states with different definitions.

What’s more, Farm Bureau said defining and accepting the term would create more confusion among California farmers, ranchers and consumers, as there are already many environmental terms placed on the sector, including sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services.

In addition, the letter said defining regenerative agriculture is an effort to pick winners and losers among California farmers and ranchers. It would create another term to fragment the agriculture sector further. Instead of two categories—conventional and organic agriculture—there would be three: conventional, organic and regenerative, Farm Bureau said.

Labor relations

At its Oct. 30 meeting, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board approved a decision to sublease office space from the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, an environmental justice and unionization advocacy group known for proposing a $26 an hour minimum wage for farmworkers to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. The group has also staged a so-called “toxic tour” with local and state officials pushing a narrative that agricultural use of crop protection materials poses a “toxic” risk.

California Farm Bureau and other agricultural employer stakeholders expressed concern that subleasing space in Santa Maria would compromise what impartiality remains in the ALRB’s dealings with agricultural employers and the principal union seeking to unionize California farms and ranches, the United Farm Workers. The labor relations board voted unanimously to approve the decision.

Energy

On Oct. 16, the California Air Resources Board closed a second comment period for the low carbon fuel standard. California Farm Bureau advocated for continued crediting to avoid methane, saying dairy families have been doing their part, thanks in part to state investment in proven technologies such as methane digesters and the state Alternative Manure Management Program to reduce emissions of critically important methane. The item will be heard at the Nov. 8 CARB board meeting in Riverside and on Zoom.

Farm Bureau thanked CARB for extending its proposed deadline for credit generation for hydrogen produced fossil gas from 2030 to 2035, as having the extra years is crucial to ramp up the supply of hydrogen and make it into a viable economy. However, Farm Bureau remains concerned about the limits applied to credit generation from agricultural lipid feedstocks. Farm Bureau has asked that all decisions be science based.

Farm Bureau recognized CARB for aligning the description of biomass waste with local, state and federal requirements. Farm Bureau supports a new carbon intensity for low carbon-intensity electricity produced by fuel cell from biomethane.